Glad you get the point. Whichever party is in charge at the State level has always gerrymandered to help themselves, it was one of several reasons the Dems controlled the House from 1954-1994. Of course back then they were more generally in favor of gerrymandering.

And...? "Obama" ??? You've always been part of the problem Goose. Sorry that's a fact. Revenge not correction. It won't end either. Just get worse.

I didn't mention Obama, I don't understand the need to tie him to history older than he is.

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken

In spring 2011, the six Democratic members of Maryland’s congressional delegations tasked Eric Hawkins with two key jobs: Draw new district lines that get us re-elected easily for another five terms, while also taking direct aim at the state’s last two Republicans.

Behind closed doors, Democratic insiders and high-ranking aides referred to it as “the 7-1 map.” Hawkins—an analyst at a Beltway data firm called NCEC Services—not only made it happen, but imagined an 8-0 map that might have shut Republicans out of power altogether. That, however, would have required spreading Democratic voters a little too thin and made some incumbents slightly less safe; these congressmen were partisans, sure, but they were also reluctant to risk their own seats.

New court depositions and previously unseen emails uncover just how determined Maryland Democrats were to take a seat from the Republicans and knock 10-term veteran Roscoe Bartlett—an idiosyncratic conservative who after losing his seat retired off the grid in the mountains of West Virginia, issuing dire warnings about the vulnerability of our power grid—out of office.

They also reveal the partisanship with which Democrats approached redistricting in Maryland: As former governor and 2016 Democratic presidential primary candidate Martin O’Malley explains, he and other Democrats wanted to use their party’s control of the governor’s office to secure a 7-1 majority.

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken

In spring 2011, the six Democratic members of Maryland’s congressional delegations tasked Eric Hawkins with two key jobs: Draw new district lines that get us re-elected easily for another five terms, while also taking direct aim at the state’s last two Republicans.

Behind closed doors, Democratic insiders and high-ranking aides referred to it as “the 7-1 map.” Hawkins—an analyst at a Beltway data firm called NCEC Services—not only made it happen, but imagined an 8-0 map that might have shut Republicans out of power altogether. That, however, would have required spreading Democratic voters a little too thin and made some incumbents slightly less safe; these congressmen were partisans, sure, but they were also reluctant to risk their own seats.

New court depositions and previously unseen emails uncover just how determined Maryland Democrats were to take a seat from the Republicans and knock 10-term veteran Roscoe Bartlett—an idiosyncratic conservative who after losing his seat retired off the grid in the mountains of West Virginia, issuing dire warnings about the vulnerability of our power grid—out of office.

They also reveal the partisanship with which Democrats approached redistricting in Maryland: As former governor and 2016 Democratic presidential primary candidate Martin O’Malley explains, he and other Democrats wanted to use their party’s control of the governor’s office to secure a 7-1 majority.

In spring 2011, the six Democratic members of Maryland’s congressional delegations tasked Eric Hawkins with two key jobs: Draw new district lines that get us re-elected easily for another five terms, while also taking direct aim at the state’s last two Republicans.

Behind closed doors, Democratic insiders and high-ranking aides referred to it as “the 7-1 map.” Hawkins—an analyst at a Beltway data firm called NCEC Services—not only made it happen, but imagined an 8-0 map that might have shut Republicans out of power altogether. That, however, would have required spreading Democratic voters a little too thin and made some incumbents slightly less safe; these congressmen were partisans, sure, but they were also reluctant to risk their own seats.

New court depositions and previously unseen emails uncover just how determined Maryland Democrats were to take a seat from the Republicans and knock 10-term veteran Roscoe Bartlett—an idiosyncratic conservative who after losing his seat retired off the grid in the mountains of West Virginia, issuing dire warnings about the vulnerability of our power grid—out of office.

They also reveal the partisanship with which Democrats approached redistricting in Maryland: As former governor and 2016 Democratic presidential primary candidate Martin O’Malley explains, he and other Democrats wanted to use their party’s control of the governor’s office to secure a 7-1 majority.

Hold on hold on hold on. A political party likes rules when they break to their advantage???

Nooooooooooooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Come on goose this isn't a partisan issue. Gerrymandering is a terrible system that can be greater taken advantage of in modern times due to the wealth of information and analytics available to make it work anyway anyone wants it to. This isn't "my side vs your side." Though I have no doubt you'll continue to try to make it into that so I don't know why I'm saying anything. Carry on.

_________________I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.

Hold on hold on hold on. A political party likes rules when they break to their advantage???

Nooooooooooooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Come on goose this isn't a partisan issue. Gerrymandering is a terrible system that can be greater taken advantage of in modern times due to the wealth of information and analytics available to make it work anyway anyone wants it to. This isn't "my side vs your side." Though I have no doubt you'll continue to try to make it into that so I don't know why I'm saying anything. Carry on.

The Supreme Court popped Goose's balloon and he implied they were wrong.

Hold on hold on hold on. A political party likes rules when they break to their advantage???

Nooooooooooooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Come on goose this isn't a partisan issue. Gerrymandering is a terrible system that can be greater taken advantage of in modern times due to the wealth of information and analytics available to make it work anyway anyone wants it to. This isn't "my side vs your side." Though I have no doubt you'll continue to try to make it into that so I don't know why I'm saying anything. Carry on.

I've put my gerrymandering reform plan forward many times. The point of this post is to remind my libbie friends here that even as they accuse R's of all kinds of nefarious activity that their preferred party is far from having clean hands.

Still waiting for the TrueBelievers™ in the "solid South" to explain to me how Democrats still controlled Georgia in 2001?

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken

Hold on hold on hold on. A political party likes rules when they break to their advantage???

Nooooooooooooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Come on goose this isn't a partisan issue. Gerrymandering is a terrible system that can be greater taken advantage of in modern times due to the wealth of information and analytics available to make it work anyway anyone wants it to. This isn't "my side vs your side." Though I have no doubt you'll continue to try to make it into that so I don't know why I'm saying anything. Carry on.

I've put my gerrymandering reform plan forward many times. The point of this post is to remind my libbie friends here that even as they accuse R's of all kinds of nefarious activity that their preferred party is far from having clean hands.

Still waiting for the TrueBelievers™ in the "solid South" to explain to me how Democrats still controlled Georgia in 2001?

Hold on hold on hold on. A political party likes rules when they break to their advantage???

Nooooooooooooooooooo waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Come on goose this isn't a partisan issue. Gerrymandering is a terrible system that can be greater taken advantage of in modern times due to the wealth of information and analytics available to make it work anyway anyone wants it to. This isn't "my side vs your side." Though I have no doubt you'll continue to try to make it into that so I don't know why I'm saying anything. Carry on.

I've put my gerrymandering reform plan forward many times. The point of this post is to remind my libbie friends here that even as they accuse R's of all kinds of nefarious activity that their preferred party is far from having clean hands.

Still waiting for the TrueBelievers™ in the "solid South" to explain to me how Democrats still controlled Georgia in 2001?

That is so fucking stupid goose. Really, it's stupid. Just a stupid take. You know what I would say if republicans didn't take advantage of gerrymandering? I'd call them fucking idiots. It's not their fault. Don't hate the player hate the game. So your response is to point out times democrats have played by the rules and spike the ball like you proved a point? And you then wonder why I call you a total hack.

_________________I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.

I've put my gerrymandering reform plan forward many times. The point of this post is to remind my libbie friends here that even as they accuse R's of all kinds of nefarious activity that their preferred party is far from having clean hands.

Still waiting for the TrueBelievers™ in the "solid South" to explain to me how Democrats still controlled Georgia in 2001?

That is so fucking stupid goose. Really, it's stupid. Just a stupid take. You know what I would say if republicans didn't take advantage of gerrymandering? I'd call them fucking idiots. It's not their fault. Don't hate the player hate the game. So your response is to point out times democrats have played by the rules and spike the ball like you proved a point? And you then wonder why I call you a total hack.

I'm sorry that it angers you but I've given up my utopian hopes of any real change. They're all crooked as hell. Nothing is going to ever change for the better in politics. The American people are too stupid and thus too easily misled.

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken

That is so fucking stupid goose. Really, it's stupid. Just a stupid take. You know what I would say if republicans didn't take advantage of gerrymandering? I'd call them fucking idiots. It's not their fault. Don't hate the player hate the game. So your response is to point out times democrats have played by the rules and spike the ball like you proved a point? And you then wonder why I call you a total hack.

I'm sorry that it angers you but I've given up my utopian hopes of any real change. They're all crooked as hell. Nothing is going to ever change for the better in politics. The American people are too stupid and thus too easily misled.

Thank you for the link about democrats playing by the rules all the same goose.

_________________I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.

I'm sorry that it angers you but I've given up my utopian hopes of any real change. They're all crooked as hell. Nothing is going to ever change for the better in politics. The American people are too stupid and thus too easily misled.

Thank you for the link about democrats playing by the rules all the same goose.

Let me know when you're ready to invest in some land, armaments and shelf stable foods.

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken

When they compared the final redistricting maps devised the state legislators with the publically proposed alternative maps, the researchers found that the legislators' efforts were less competitive than 71 percent of the proposed alternatives. But the maps created by nonpartisan redistricting commissions were worse; 76 percent were less competitive than the proposed alternatives.

"In sum, independent commissions do not draw House maps that encourage greater electoral competition any more than partisan legislature do," the researchers conclude. "Overall, our results suggest caution in overhauling state redistricting institutions to increase electoral competition: independent commissions may not be as politically-neutral as theorized."

H.L. Mencken once quipped, "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong." Independent redistricting commissions appear to be just such a solution.

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken

When they compared the final redistricting maps devised the state legislators with the publically proposed alternative maps, the researchers found that the legislators' efforts were less competitive than 71 percent of the proposed alternatives. But the maps created by nonpartisan redistricting commissions were worse; 76 percent were less competitive than the proposed alternatives.

"In sum, independent commissions do not draw House maps that encourage greater electoral competition any more than partisan legislature do," the researchers conclude. "Overall, our results suggest caution in overhauling state redistricting institutions to increase electoral competition: independent commissions may not be as politically-neutral as theorized."

H.L. Mencken once quipped, "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong." Independent redistricting commissions appear to be just such a solution.

Hey what do they know. I mean those climate scientists are full of shit right?

Does gerrymandering matter? Not as much as you might think. You're sure to be wrong if you take at face value the rhetoric of liberals who seem to place most of the blame for Republican majorities in the House of Representatives on partisan map-making.

I have argued repeatedly — in December 2017, September 2017, July 2015, October 2014, September 2014, January 2014, and February 2013, that redistricting is less important in securing Republican congressional and legislative majorities than demographic clustering — the fact that Democratic voters are increasingly concentrated in black, Hispanic, gentry liberal and university areas.

That's because Democrats’ huge majorities in districts dominated by such voters do nothing to elect Democrats in the remaining districts. A party with clustered constituencies is inevitably disadvantaged by a system of equal-population legislative districts. That conclusion is confirmed by the research of political scientists Jowei Chen (University of Michigan) and Jonathan Rodden (Stanford), as reported in the New York Times in 2014, and it was confirmed once again last week by the work of David Wasserman and three colleagues at FiveThirtyEight in their Atlas of Redistricting.

Only one of these seven methods — Democratic gerrymander — produces more “usually Democratic” than “usually Republican” districts. Even proportionally partisan plans, which Democrats are hoping Justice Kennedy and the four Democratic-appointed justices will require, produces more usually Republican than usually Democratic districts. The current plans, by the way, produce 195 districts they classify as "usually Republican" and only 168 as "usually Democratic."

For more details, consult the Atlas of Redistricting. And take a look at Wasserman’s FiveThirtyEight article titled “Hating Gerrymandering Is Easy. Fixing It Is Harder.” In the process, he confirms points I have been making for more than five years and which others, including Wasserman himself, have increasingly been making.

_________________The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H. L. Mencken